[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: Tiny fragments issues
From:       Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan () ericsson ! com>
Date:       2007-05-22 22:04:28
Message-ID: 465368EC.8090506 () ericsson ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Vishwas,
Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Hi Suresh,
> 
> So are you suggesting the non-last fragment size of less than 1280,
> example 1200.

Not exactly, but I think this should be administratively configurable. 
(1200 is a nice round number though :-)

> 
> I still have a doubt on this one. Can we state that the first fragment
> should have the complete TCP/ UDP headers? I find this essential for
> the case of stateless filtering, which are easier to do at line rate
> in the hardware.


I see where you are coming from, and as a person working on a NP based 
router I can empathize with you. But I do not see this being specified 
as the IPv6 fragmentation algorithm should not mention anything about 
upper layer headers (layering violation). If we go down this path we 
need to specify this for SCTP, DCCP, (insert your favorite future 
transport procol here), ....

Cheers
Suresh

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]